Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tangy From Animal Crossing

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  redirect to Characters in the Animal Crossing series. Since Tangy is a villager, rd to the list of characters rather than the series itself. (As a side note, I don't think the creator had a COI - they're obviously just a fan). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Tangy From Animal Crossing

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Created by user:Tangyisepic, seemed COI and not enough notability. PAVLOV (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete since it's been brought here, but this kind of stuff is much better left for WP:G13. These kind of pages are dime a dozen in draft space and a week of discussion here is more effort than this page is worth. I don't think the allegations of WP:COI hold but the subject of this page has no hint of notability and hence no chance of making it to article space. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Needs declining or rejecting if submitted. Hasn't been submitted.  Not worth the effort of arguing about.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NDRAFT. COI is a reason to use draftspace, not to delete from it.  MfD is not for evaluating notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You say that, but AFC reviewers bring hopeless drafts here all the time to ask that they be deleted after repeated resubmission, which does involve evaluating whether it has any realistic prospect of becoming an article (i.e. notability). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC specifically allowing the bringing to MfD drafts that have been repeatedly, tendentiously resubmitted. Has this one been tendentiously resubmitted?
 * When a draft is nominated for tendentious resubmission, then we evaluate notability, and if it looks notable, I for one won’t agree to deletion.
 * Outside of tendentious resubmission, an MfD nomination of a draft should cite a deletion reason, and this nomination does not. I therefore consider it time wasting, and not to be rewarded.  Reasons for deletion can be found at WP:DEL (but note that much of that is written for mainspace) and WP:NOT.  Outside of that, other nominations seem to only attract worthless harmless junk, and using mfd to discuss worthless harmless junk is a net negative of editor resources.  If there is really something wrong with the draft, it should be rejected.  Rejection is part of the AfC process, and MfD is not part of the AfC process.  AfC reviewers who don’t know this should learn.  Reject first.  Reject means it is Rejected from AfC, and no longer an AfC responsibility.  If there is further problem after the Reject, then come to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If your main objection is wasting editor time then how does your comment make sense. This shouldn't have been brought here in the first place (and I said as much in my original !vote) but it is here now and a week long discussion is going to occur regardless. How does it make sense to keep this, not because it is a valid draft that has a chance of becoming an article but purely to spite the nominator, so that other editors can then waste time editing it in draftspace, it can go through AFC and have a reviewer waste time rejecting it, all so it can then rot for 6 months then eventually end up deleted under a different process? How is that a good use of editor time and not just pointless bureaucracy? Random character 147 from animal crossing is not a notable topic and this has zero chance of ever becoming an article, any time at all spent on this draft after this discussion is a waste. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I sometimes !vote “Delete now that we’re here” on hopeless harmless pages that shouldn’t come to mfd, but this one is so completely harmless that it is the textbook candidate for something best left to G13. Consider it feedback for User:PAVLOV.  Some draftspace new page patrollers, eg User:DGG, have noted the desire to clear the junk to prevent time wastage if other NPP reviewers re-review it, but MfD is not a net positive solution.  I’ve suggested blanking.  NPP could find a way to record a first review.  The dangers of bad quick deletions amongst the huge amount of harmless worthless draftpages exceeds the benefits of fast clearing them.  Leave them for G13.  Hosting harmless worthless stuff for six months is the very purpose of draftspace, and this nomination is contrary to that purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the video game of interest. This has 0 potential in the mainspace, but as an article exists as a viable target, might as well skip wasting future time for all involved. --Izno (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this as an editorial action. Narrow forks of mainspace content should be redirected back to the article, unless there is article talk page consensus to use draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.